Awesome: Female Virginia Rep Openly Carries Her Firearm On House Floor

By William Teach January 18, 2019 – 6:52 am

She says it is her version of the ERA and a way to protect herself from the crazy protesting and threatening liberals

FEMALE VA STATE SENATOR OPEN CARRIES ON HOUSE FLOOR — CALLS GUN HER ‘ERA’

A Virginia state senator utilized the state’s open-carry law in a unique way on Tuesday by carrying her .38 caliber revolver with her right into the state’s capitol building.

Amanda Chase, a first-term conservative state senator who has made news by being a vocal opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, decided to carry her gun after pro-immigration activists confronted a fellow state senator the day before, forcing Capitol Police to be called, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“It concerned me,” Chase told The Washington Post, describing her feelings about the incident. “I’ve had threats. I’ve had stalkers since I’ve been in the General Assembly. I am going to continue to represent the issues that are important to my constituents, and I’m not going to be intimidated by people who would try to physically harm me.”

Chase, who has a concealed-carry permit and says she always carries concealed, open-carried on Tuesday while presenting bills in the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. One of those bills happened to be an Equal Rights Amendment resolution alternative.

“Sometimes it’s a deterrent for over-exuberant folks. Unfortunately, in the General Assembly, we see the good, we see the bad, we see all types of things,” she told the Times-Dispatch. “It’s just for personal safety, quite honestly.”

“I’ve had people get in my face. I’ve had people come up and try to touch me inappropriately,” she told the Post. “And it is a deterrent.”

It’s actually very normal for members of the General Assembly in Virginia to carry their weapons in a concealed manner within the GA building. Of course, liberal gun grabbers are spinning the open carry

She’s actually done this on at least two days

“I’ve been called a ‘badass,’” Chase said to the Post, adding that she believes the practice“empowers women.”

“I jokingly call it my ERA.”

Carrying a firearm is a great equalizer for women. Strange how the self-professed defenders of women in the Democratic Party want to take this away.

Read: Awesome: Female Virginia Rep Openly Carries Her Firearm On House Floor »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Awesome, GOP | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Healthcare Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach January 17, 2019 – 3:03 pm

Well, hey, would could solve this with Medicare For All, since people wouldn’t be getting much in the way of healthcare, right? Vox is on the case of something that no one had ever thought about before, so, hey, why not link it all up?

Doctors are frightened by climate change. Their industry is a big part of the problem.
Health care creates a tenth of US greenhouse gas emissions.

Wildfire deaths. Smoky air. Floods. Droughts. There’s no escaping the reality that global warming is rapidly exacerbating threats to human health and communities in the United States and around the world. As the top scientists have told us over and over, we need to immediately lower our greenhouse gas emissions to avoid climate change’s most catastrophic effects. Governments and businesses are particularly on the hook, but so are citizens — we are all in this together.

That includes you, doctors.

In a New England Journal of Medicine commentary published Wednesday, a pair of Boston doctors make the case that it’s high time medical professionals engage more directly in the fight to limit climate change. Lead author Caren Solomon, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, tells Vox she was compelled to write the piece as the urgency of the climate crisis has become clearer and clearer. (snip)

But that’s not all: It turns out that the business of saving lives is part of the problem. In the US alone, health care accounts for nearly a tenth of greenhouse gas emissions. Lifesaving equipment like CAT scanners, respirators, and dialysis machines have huge energy demands, currently met with fossil fuel energy. If US health care were a country, according to Solomon and her co-author Regina LaRocque, it would have a $3.3 trillion GDP and rank seventh in the world in total emissions. Hospitals also produce about a pound of hazardous medical waste per bed per day.

Easiest thing to do is just kill everyone, right? Meh. Warmist always find a way to ruin everything.

Anyhow, what can doctors do?

  • Hospitals can commit to 100 percent clean energy, or carbon neutrality (yeah, let’s run hospitals with unreliable, expensive energy, which will drive up prices more)
  • Doctors can educate policymakers and the public about the health impact of climate change (and this reduces the so-called carbon footprint of the medical sector how, exactly? This is just spreading awareness)
  • Heath care can divest from fossil fuel companies (and this will drive up medical costs, and, weird how this looks just like what the far left is pushing, right?)
  • Physicians need to get ready for increasing environmental health threats linked to climate change (how does this decrease their own carbon footprint?)

So, basically, they can do things that will do almost nothing. How about all the doctors giving up their own expensive fossil fueled vehicles?

Read: Bummer: Healthcare Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, Healthcare | Comments Off on Bummer: Healthcare Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 17, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution created heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on a CNN contributor checking the white privilege of a black Conservative.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Hey, There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

By William Teach January 17, 2019 – 10:30 am

Democrats keep telling us they are not for Open Borders, they just want (insert daily talking point, like they want comprehensive immigration reform, walls are immoral, etc, here). How dare we call them Open Borders! That’s just not right!

There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers.

Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.

Would it surprise you that this was written by a legal immigrant, Farhad Manjoo?

As an immigrant, this idea (of border security) confounds me. My family came to the United States from our native South Africa in the late 1980s. After jumping through lots of expensive and confusing legal hoops, we became citizens in 2000. Obviously, it was a blessing: In rescuing me from a society in which people of my color were systematically oppressed, America has given me a chance at liberty.

It was such a blessing that he’s now demanding that America change itself completely.

A new migrant caravan is forming in Honduras, and the president is itching for the resulting political fight.

Here’s hoping Democrats respond with creativity and verve. Not just “No wall.” Not just “Abolish ICE.”

Instead: “Let them in.”

Farhad is really just saying what most Democrats are thinking.

Read: NY Times: Hey, There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Connecticut Looks To Mandate Early Indoctrination Of ‘Climate Change’ At Schools

By William Teach January 17, 2019 – 8:17 am

See, now, if I was a Leftist, I would be screeching about this being the same thing they did in the Third Reich, that Hitler was literally forcing indoctrination on kids for his pet causes. I wouldn’t say that, though

CONNECTICUT LAW WOULD MANDATE CLIMATE CHANGE INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

A bill introduced recently in the Connecticut General Assembly is proposing that Connecticut public schools be required to teach students about climate change starting in their earliest years.

The short text of the proposed legislation, H.B. No. 5011, demands that existing statutes governing state education be amended “to require that the science curriculum of the prescribed courses of study for public schools include the teaching of climate change and that such teaching begin in elementary school.”

“A lot of schools make the study of climate change an elective, and I don’t believe it should be an elective,” Democratic state Rep. Christine Palm, who introduced the bill, told the Associated Press. “I think it should be mandatory, and I think it should be early so there’s no excuse for kids to grow up ignorant of what’s at stake.”

Palm maintained to the AP that while she would love to legally force the teaching of poetry, climate change is simply much more important. “I’d love to see poetry be mandated. That’s never going to happen,” Palm said. “That’s not life or death.”

Yeah, I won’t go down the Nazi road. More like the Communism road, where Lenin said “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” Karl Marx wanted every child to be in a state school the minute they can get along without a mother’s care. Either way, Commie or Nazi, they’re rooted in authoritarianism, which very much wants to indoctrinate kids, rather than teach them. And Warmists are happy to indoctrinate kids.

They just aren’t happy practicing what they preach, like giving up their own use of fossil fuels and making their lives carbon neutral.

Read: Connecticut Looks To Mandate Early Indoctrination Of ‘Climate Change’ At Schools »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Open Borders Kirsten Gillibrand Now Wants Driver’s Licenses, Amnesty For Illegal Aliens, Loves Sanctuary Cities

By William Teach January 17, 2019 – 7:57 am

Kirsten Gillibrand has already jumped on the Abolish ICE bandwagon, wanting to get rid of it and “re-imagine it.” She was the first Senator to make the call. But, we aren’t supposed to think this is a call for open borders, of course. She’s against providing more money for a border barrier. Then this

In latest reversal, Gillibrand now supports letting illegal immigrants get driver’s licenses

After initially opposing the idea of her home state granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has had a change of heart.

“I think we have to make it possible for people to provide for their families,” the New York Democrat said Wednesday, as she was leaving to attend her 2020 presidential campaign kickoff event.

Gillibrand’s new stand on the issue is in contrast from the position she took during her days in the House, when she opposed then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s controversial 2007 plan to allow illegal immigrants living in New York to obtain driver licenses.

“I do not support giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants,” Gillibrand said back then, the Washington Free Beacon reported. At the time, Gillibrand said she supported legislation that required anyone seeking a drivers’ license to show proof of citizenship first.

At a Wednesday news conference in Troy – a city of about 50,000 residents just outside Gillibrand’s birthplace, the state capital Albany – the second-term senator said her heart has guided her policy reversals on issues such as gun control, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants and her opposition to sanctuary cities, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

She flipped on gun control (so she says), which is an attempt to reel in a few votes. She now supports amnesty for illegals, sanctuary cities, and the driver’s licenses for illegals. To the Free Beacon

“I think we have to make it possible for people to provide for their families,” Gillibrand told the New York Daily News on Wednesday outside a diner in Brunswick, New York. “We need comprehensive immigration reform. Without doing that, you’re not going to get the problem solved for the rest of the country.”

Giving more people the impetus to come illegally/overstay visas is not exactly a position of closed borders, nor are amnesty and sanctuary jurisdictions.

Those are just a few quick headlines. And there are many, many others, including ones about MS-13 gang members operating in NY.

Unless you are going to shut the border down and put in harsh, tough measures to stop most illegal immigration (which includes people coming illegally and overstaying visas) from occurring, to make sure that the people who just show up and demand asylum (which most do not get) at ports of entry are not released after which they disappear into the nation, and stop giving reasons for people to come illegally, amnesty cannot be implemented. Democrats won’t talk about any security and measures which give reasons to people to not be here illegally (such as massive civil and criminal penalties on entities that hire illegals, refusing to educate them and their kids, and more). We saw this with the DACA debate. They wanted a clean bill, amnesty for the so-called Dreamers, with no border security or any security included.

But we’re not supposed to call them open borders.

Read: Open Borders Kirsten Gillibrand Now Wants Driver’s Licenses, Amnesty For Illegal Aliens, Loves Sanctuary Cities »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Serving Fast Food To Clemson Was Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 16, 2019 – 3:50 pm

There have been lots and lots (and lots) of hot takes on President Trump serving fast food, which he paid for out of his own pocket, to the Clemson Tigers football team, which won the national championship (something not mentioned in the article.) Of course, Warmists gotta do Warmist, as we get Robert Gebelhoff in the Washington Post

Donald Trump’s fast-food presidency

President Trump couldn’t welcome the Clemson University football team Monday with food typically served at the White House, given that caterers there were furloughed under the partial government shutdown. So he did what many other Americans do when their options are limited: He ordered out.

The president celebrated the fast-food display — complete with mounds of hamburgers, fries, pizzas and, to be fair, some boxed salads — and, of course, boasted about paying for it himself. The reception, no doubt, was an attempt to make the president more relatable, but if anything, his cornucopia of greasy indulgence should serve as a symbol of his presidency.

Robert goes on to yammer about food deserts and nutrition and stuff, because people can’t have a day with some less than healthy food (fun fact: the majority of these fast foods have no MSG, as explained by my allergist. I’m big time allergic, to the point of going to the doctor or worse. Subway and Firehouse subs are a big no no for me. Processed meats) before diving into

But food isn’t the only aspect of life where Americans overvalue instant gratification and ignore the massive challenges looming on the horizon. The Trump administration embodies that mind-set.

Take climate change. Trump’s opponents advocate taking on some of the long-term costs associated with remedying global warming now, either by implementing some type of carbon tax or using taxpayer money to subsidize cleaner energy. Trump’s strategy is not merely to ignore the problem but to deny that it’s even happening. The short-term economic benefits of carbon-based energy are just too tantalizing for the president’s conservative base to give up, so he parades around talking about a “war on coal” and promising that coal jobs will reappear — as if the president has power to control the market forces that have cut into the coal industry.

Oh, and Robert dives into immigration and other stuff. All because of some fast food.

Read: Trump Serving Fast Food To Clemson Was Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Donald Trump, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 16, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bicycle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is MOTUS A.D., with a post on the Democrats fight club.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

New Warmist Solution: Ban Energy, Cows, And Fossil Fueled Vehicles

By William Teach January 16, 2019 – 10:30 am

Think this will go over well, including with most Warmists? This is the kind of Warmist screed that actually gets worse the more you read it

One simple — but really hard — solution to stop climate change

There may actually be a way to keep the worst of climate change at bay, but it’s going to take a herculean effort, according to a new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.

Climate change is well underway already, the time to act and limit its human causes is now, many studies have shown. This latest report maps out what it may take to get there.

It posits that if the world was to phase out its “carbon-intensive infrastructure” at the end of its design lifetime starting from the end of 2018, there’s a 64% chance that the planet’s peak temperature can remain below the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Above that, scientists predict the planet will see even more extreme weather events such as wildfires, droughts, floods, massive animal die offs and food shortages for millions. The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree Celsius.

To keep the global median temperature within this optimal 1.5 degree-Celsius limit, according to this study, change would have to happen across all sectors, not just in the energy sector. Power plants would need to be replaced, but so would gas and diesel-fueled cars, aircraft, ships and industrial plants. Even cows would have to go — essentially, anything that contributes to global warming.

Under this scenario, infrastructure such as power plants wouldn’t have to be scrapped and replaced with a non-carbon emitting technology — at least, not immediately. The researchers are talking about a “design lifetime.” In the case of power plants, the average lifetime based on historic data, is about 40 years. The average lifetime of a car on the road now is more than 11 years, according to Consumer Reports, but could last for about 200,000 miles, or 15 years, US estimates show. Once they wear out, stop working or die, they’d be replaced with technology or products that do not contribute to climate change.

So, once that lifetime is hit, no more. Period. Which means that the federal government would have to declare that no more fossil fueled vehicles would be allowed to be manufactured and sold. Which means that cows and pigs and dogs and cats and more wouldn’t be allowed to have babies. No more ships and aircraft. No more manufacturing plants. Heck, no more human babies.

These people really are bat-guano insane.

Read: New Warmist Solution: Ban Energy, Cows, And Fossil Fueled Vehicles »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Proposed Oregon Gun Laws Are Worse Than You Thought

By William Teach January 16, 2019 – 7:36 am

I noted the other day that a bill submitted by Oregon State Senator Rob Wagner (D) would limit people to magazines that hold no more than 5 rounds, and that people would be restricted from purchasing more than 20 rounds per month. It gets even worse, which means other Democrat run states will give this a whirl

Tough Gun Control Bill, To Oregon Senate

Scheduled to appear this year in front of the Oregon Senate is SB 501, a bill that would dramatically change firearms laws in Oregon. The bill was authored by Students for Change, a gun control advocacy group of Lake Oswego teenagers that assembled after the Parkland, Florida massacre.

If passed as the bill now stands, Oregon gun laws would be among the strictest in the country. The piece of legislation calls for anyone purchasing or receing a firearm to obtain a state-issued permit, punishable by 364 days imprisonment, a $6,250 fine, or both. The bill also requires gun owners to secure all firearms not carried by or within reach of the owner via trigger locks or locked containers, a violation would carry 30 days jail time, a $1,250 fine, or both. The law would also require background checks for purchasing or receiving ammunition, mandatory reporting to police within 24 hours of firearm theft, and 14 day background checks for gun purchases and transfers.

None of this would affect criminals. Just law abiding citizens. Most people do not keep their firearm on or near them while at home. But, they know where they are if they need them. However, they would have to be locked up, making them worthless when needed. Further, how would the Authorities know? Will they be making spot checks?

Perhaps the most sweeping changes that this bill proposes are magazine capacity regulations and ammunition sales limits. As the bill exists, it would prohibit most “large-capacity magazines,” which it defines as all magazines, fixed or detachable, capable of holding more than five rounds. Exempted from the ban would be fixed .22 caliber magazine tubes and fixed lever-action rifle magazines. The bill contained no language exempting shotguns from the ban, which sometimes hold seven shells in a fixed magazine tube. This legislation would presumably outlaw most revolvers, which usually hold six rounds. The penalty for violating this section of the law would be 364 days in prison, a $6,250, or both. Currently, the strictest state magazine capacity laws in the U.S. limit to ten rounds, and exist in a handful of states including California and New York.

The legislation would outlaw most shotguns and revolvers. And there is no grandfathering in the bill as proposed.

SB 501 would also limit ammunition sales to 20 rounds a month, per person. Rounds sold at shooting ranges would be the exception, but all rounds purchased must be fired on site. Ammunition is very commonly sold in packages of 25. Some states have ammunition laws that include permitting and prohibited round types, but a 20 round limit would be the first state law barring ammo purchase at a certain amount.

The bill as proposed also raises the age of purchase to 21 for all firearms, and makes it very difficult and very complicated to purchase. Any criminal conviction would disqualify a person. Got caught with a beer at the park? Convicted of that minor offense? Barred.

Of course, there aren’t many guns one would be allowed to actually own that are usable. Matt Vespa writes “So, in other words, if this passes, the only legal firearms you could own in Oregon were the ones the Louis and Clark expedition probably carried when they rolled into the area in the 1800s.” That might be a bit much, because that bottom rifle in the picture comes with a 5 round magazine, like many hunting rifles. This would ban the majority of handguns, though, unless the manufacturers start making mags that will only hold 5 rounds.

Expect other Democrat cities and states to start looking to do the same. Because this was always about banning guns.

Also expect lots of lawsuits and court challenges.

Read: Proposed Oregon Gun Laws Are Worse Than You Thought »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove